Mar 15, 2010, 12:30 PM
The fourth prosecution witness, Ken Mendy, who is a police Superintendent and officer commanding the Registry at Police Headquarters in
In his testimony on 19th January 2010, he told the court that he is responsible for all the incoming and outgoing correspondences.
He said that on 13th October 2009, the accused brought in an application for a permit for the use of a public address system, which he received from the accused and minuted to the IGP for further directives.
Superintendent Mendy added that the application was not approved, and that the directive came on 13th October 2009. He further indicated that he could identify the said application letter which was addressed to the IGP.
At this juncture, Inspector Fadera applied to tender the said application letter for a permit submitted by the accused. The defence counsel did not object to Fadera's application.
The witness continued to tell the court that on 23rd October 2009, between 10.00 a.m. and 12 noon, at Police Headquarters, the accused made a follow up about the application he sent to the IGP for the use of a public address system, and that he (Mendy) asked him (Peters) to wait so that he could check in the file to see the directives given by the IGP. He testified that he then communicated to the accused, and informed him that his application was not approved.
Prosecution witness number 4 then went on to say that the accused told him that the IGP should be diplomatic. He further stated that the accused then told him that he knew what he would do.
He told the court that when an application is approved, the police would write to the applicant and that when it is not approved, they communicate to the applicant verbally.